Ianroberts
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to this thread, only 2 posts have been deleted - and they were deleted by the people who posted them.
Thanks for the clarification, however I cant see it ending well (this thread)
If you are referring to this thread, only 2 posts have been deleted - and they were deleted by the people who posted them.
Not forgetting the extra time needed for these challenges. It already takes a parlous long time for the results to be announced. any difference of opinion between the 3rd person and the other two would make that even longer - or maybe you would prefer results to be announced a week after the contest?In amongst the rest of what locals in my part of the world call "squit" there is one potentially valid point
Any other form of arbiter is subjected to quality control. Football referees, tennis umpires, judges - they are all monitored on an ad-Hoc basis to ensure that they are coming up with the correct decisions. Any repeated errors are dealt with through training or removal from approved lists.
Who, however adjudicates our adjudicators? An easy method would be to have a 3rd person sitting in the tent - so they get the same perspective - who can then ask the judges to justify why they've gone with a result if its potentially contentious.
Adjudicators would still have the ability to do their job, and providing they could justify it then the checker will "go with it". However it may possibly stamp out supposed favouritism.
The downsides are costs - who bears that? And also numbers. For example in a couple of weeks time there are 4 area contests going on simultaneously. Who will judge the judges?
How independent will they truly be?
I don't understand why people are so preoccupied with demanding people's identity on here. It's only ever to try and discredit their argument by making some comment about their experience or past performance etc. I think that at times it's important to respect peoples' wishes to be anonymous because all hell breaks loose if someone gives a smidgen of a clue about who they are when they're making any kind of so-called 'controversial' statements. It really does get personal and it's no longer about debating ideas it's about trying to knock someone down on a personal level. And yes the appeal panel being made up from people with a strong vested interest is definitely bad...clause (23d)
I find this information disturbing, Farty Cat, and thank you for posting it. I believe one of your own players suffered a ban for sending a private text to an adjudicator. A local Midlands conductor was given a two year ban for his poor conduct after the contest results; and this also was extended to his band which subsequently folded as a direct result of the decision.
It doesn't seem right that the Appeal panel is made up from the very people the complaint is about.
How much right do they really have to inspect an individual comment on an online forum?
Are they going to demand the identity of posters from the forum host?
This seems to be highly controlling behaviour and I have my doubts on its legality in this country; free speech and all that. Before I would have just shrugged and said "that's banding" but now I think this is sinister.
Just because you have an opinion and are able to express it on the internet doesn't mean it actually matters.I don't understand why people are so preoccupied with demanding people's identity on here. It's only ever to try and discredit their argument by making some comment about their experience or past performance etc. I think that at times it's important to respect peoples' wishes to be anonymous because all hell breaks loose if someone gives a smidgen of a clue about who they are when they're making any kind of so-called 'controversial' statements. It really does get personal and it's no longer about debating ideas it's about trying to knock someone down on a personal level. And yes the appeal panel being made up from people with a strong vested interest is definitely bad...
Many of you will have noticed before that I mentioned that I was affiliated with Wingates, after which I was immediately shot down due to this. It brings the focus on to you as a person rather than what you have to say. Notice how I didn't try and justify myself on this matter because quite frankly I don't care who people think I am or am not - I wanted to put my opinions out there. At the end of the day, people can believe what they like - if it makes them feel better to think that nobody in the band/committee would write this on here then that's fine!
EVERYONE'S opinion is as valid as anyone elses. To say that someone's opinion doesn't matter unless they've been studying a score for months (I'm referring to comments made to whitewitch) - is an elitist and personal statement to make. Her opinion may not carry as much weight in a professional environment which I think is what the poster was trying to get at but she does have a fully functioning set of ears and is a member of this forum which entitles her to make that post. That's obviously besides the fact that none of you know ANYTHING about her so I don't understand why you feel the need to be so presumptuous.
Rant over. (for now)
I've often thought it would be a good idea for contest organisers to publish all of their adjudicators' remarks. What is helpful and constructive for the band in question would probably be beneficial to lots of other bands as well. It would also add transparency to the adjudicating process and hopefully help clarify how they came to their decision(s), particularly in the top section where interpretation perhaps plays a greater role.While I'm here, I'll give some adjudicating credit where it's due. I conducted in the second section on Sunday and we came 10th - Mike Kilroy and David Lancaster made it absolutely clear on their sheets why they'd made their choice, plenty of notes on what we'd done well and badly and what we needed to work on in order to improve. Really helpful, constructive comments.
To say that someone's opinion doesn't matter unless they've been studying a score for months (I'm referring to comments made to whitewitch) - is an elitist and personal statement to make. Her opinion may not carry as much weight in a professional environment which I think is what the poster was trying to get at but she does have a fully functioning set of ears and is a member of this forum which entitles her to make that post.
Oh god no. The Bandsman used to do this after major contests (actually they may still do for all I know) and it was the dullest read ever...I've often thought it would be a good idea for contest organisers to publish all of their adjudicators' remarks. What is helpful and constructive for the band in question would probably be beneficial to lots of other bands as well. It would also add transparency to the adjudicating process and hopefully help clarify how they came to their decision(s), particularly in the top section where interpretation perhaps plays a greater role.
Where is the problem with sticking them on 4BarsRest, in an article you are entirely at liberty to ignore? I would certainly be interested to read the remarks of, for example, Leyland and Faireys from Sunday.Oh god no. The Bandsman used to do this after major contests (actually they may still do for all I know) and it was the dullest read ever...![]()
Then make it a condition of entry.Some bands are funny about having their remarks in the public domain. Dunno why, but they are.
NW Area results 2015...
1. Fairey
2. Foden's
3. Wingates
4. Ashton
NW Area results 2016...
1. Foden's
2. Wingates
3. Fairey
4. Ashton
Where is the shock in that result?
I've heard two. One was very well done and was both informative and constructive, but you'd have been hard pushed to take anything of use from the other. So, just as with written remarks, it comes down to how well the adjudicator is able convey his thoughts. I tentatively agree it would be a step in the right direction though.I have heard one of these adjudicator recordings and it is absolutely brilliant !!
I believe it is the West of England region which, for the last two years, the adjudicators have recorded their comments into a microphone during the performance - Not the PA System, I hasten to add !!!
No written notes at all. Much quicker to comment than writing and they miss less of the following bars.
Each band receives two recordings on CD (although downloadable MP3's would be better) - one of their raw (!) performance and the other of their performance but with the adjudicator speaking their comments over the top.
No deciphering of their hastily-written scrawl and no doubts about what's being commented on, good or bad.
I have heard one of these adjudicator recordings and it is absolutely brilliant !!
It's time this method was rolled out across all the regions, in the humblest of my many opinions !
It's the future of banding !